A330????

[Philippe Dosne]

An A330 made by FSLabs would be a spectacular thing to see (and fly).

[Frederic Nadot]

On 9/2/2018 at 4:38 PM, Matthieu Crouzet said:

Voyant la qualité impressionnante des A320 et A319, je rêve d’un A330 version FSLABS. Svp un A330...

Followed by the A340-600?... 

[Daniel Reber]

Would be the best, FSL could do. A350 and A380 will come from Mettar Sim (at least I think the A350 will, too)

[Marc Ehnle]

12 hours ago, Daniel Reber said:

A380 will come from Mettar Sim

I'll believe it when it's released and really is what was promised...

[Zsolt Monostori]

Gimme my A330 Lefteris! :-)

[Joshua Williams]

Youll just have to wait and see what the long haul aircraft is after the A321. They did say they were going to develop the A3xx after the A321. Fingers crossed for the A350 but ill be thoroughly pleased with whatever it is

[Ray Proudfoot]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Williams said:

Youll just have to wait and see what the long haul aircraft is after the A321. They did say they were going to develop the A3xx after the A321. Fingers crossed for the A350 but ill be thoroughly pleased with whatever it is

Enough of these bland A3xx aircraft that fly at Mach 0.8x. Maybe a lot of you need a real aircraft. Concorde! Mach 2.02 and beautiful to look at.

Don’t you feel like flying something genuinely exciting?

[John Brosnan]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Enough of these bland A3xx aircraft that fly at Mach 0.8x. Maybe a lot of you need a real aircraft. Concorde! Mach 2.02 and beautiful to look at.

Don’t you feel like flying something genuinely exciting?

I would Love to. But unfortunately I am not smart enough to figure that plane out! 

[Ray Proudfoot]

24 minutes ago, John Brosnan said:

I would Love to. But unfortunately I am not smart enough to figure that plane out! 

Tut tut John. I’m 67 and not only can I fly her I can also manage the fuel as well. Are you sure you haven’t got the intelligence to learn how to master her? I think you probably have. Don’t put yourself down.

[Timm Rehberg]

12 hours ago, Zsolt Monostori said:

Gimme my A330 Lefteris! :-)

Not a A330 but any WideBody of Airbus xD

[John Price]

I do hope Concorde gets attention before FSL turns its attention to widebody Airbuses. Loving the Airbus though I am, as Ray says, Concorde is just so different, as well as my favourite machine of all time.

[Timm Rehberg]

3 hours ago, John Price said:

I do hope Concorde gets attention before FSL turns its attention to widebody Airbuses. Loving the Airbus though I am, as Ray says, Concorde is just so different, as well as my favourite machine of all time.

But so damn unrealistic that the Concorde should never be forgotten but never be updated as we are in 2019 ...  

[John Price]

Are you saying that producing a renovated FSL Concorde for p3d v4 is not worthwhile because it's no longer in service? I would actually tend to agree with you in normal circumstances, because I'm a person who likes to fly real world flights in real world aircraft, in real time if at all possible, so I don't usually fly historic/fictional flights in the sim. Concorde, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. It's an aircraft like no other; it did what no other civilian airliner could do. And to have such a complex, challenging aircraft modelled with FSL accuracy and systems fidelity, is, in my opinion, the hottest prospect in the simming world at the moment.

I will also be doing videos for my Flight Sim Guides Youtube channel on Concorde when it comes out. Again, would usually have reservations about doing guides on aircraft no longer in service, but I have no reservations about doing it with Concorde, because it's such a special machine that I believe to be of great interest to all of us with passions for aviation, even if it is no longer in service.

[Dmitrij Nazarenko]

17 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Enough of these bland A3xx aircraft that fly at Mach 0.8x. Maybe a lot of you need a real aircraft. Concorde! Mach 2.02 and beautiful to look at.

Don’t you feel like flying something genuinely exciting?

Unfortunately the route selection is veeeeeeeeery limited with that bird...

Still, would like to seem FSL update it for v4, so that you lot would stop posting about this is every second thread

[Ray Proudfoot]

52 minutes ago, Dmitrij Nazarenko said:

Unfortunately the route selection is veeeeeeeeery limited with that bird...

Still, would like to seem FSL update it for v4, so that you lot would stop posting about this is every second thread

No it isn't. If you have PFPX you can plan your own routes making sure of course you don't go supersonic over populated areas.

Then you download and install CPS-X - previously donationware but now free in the AvSim library.

You feed your Concorde plan into that and it calculates fuel, reheat times and all the other parameters required. It exports it as a XML file which FSL Concorde will happily accept.

My favourite routes are EGCC-LPPT, EGLL-GCTS, PHNL-KLAX and KJFK-KMCO. All flown in less than half the time it takes you Airbus pilots.

We keep posting because Lefteris seems to have forgotten all about Concorde so this is just another gentle reminder some news would be appreciated from the head honcho!

[Konstantin Didushok]

I don't plan to use P3D v4 in the near future (I will probably wait out for v5), but I am kind of sad that FSL missed the chance to make a tribute to Concorde on her upcoming 50th anniversary of her maiden flight on March 2, 1969. That would have been the best "birthday" gift to the aviation world. However, I still hope that the team will shift the focus to Concorde soon. (Will it be called Concorde64?)

[Ray Proudfoot]

Konstantin, I do have P3Dv4 and have just bought the PMDG737 to tide me over whilst I patiently wait for the promised 64-bit Concorde.

Being able to fly in ultra high definition - 3840*2160 - is wonderful and is the future.  But then I have to downscale to 1920*1080 for Concorde and the panels are not very good. I can’t use Spotlights either as it causes that Nvidia warning message.

We really do need a Concorde fit for a modern flight simulator. Maybe the team have a surprise announcement for us on 2 March. It would be a fitting date.

[Alexander Polcher]

Really interesting to go through those topics.

Let's face the truth, and this is that FSLabs is obviously the only distributor which is able to compute and develope a state-of-the-art Airbus product.

However, though I am german and I would love to see the Lufthansa Airbus A340-300 and -600 in the air, it makes absoluetly no sense do develope them at first, as they are already beeing removed from the majority of the airlines. Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa are more or less the remaining operators wordlwide for thos beautiful -600, but they do simply take too much fuel.

So we won't see any A340s flying in the near future, nor as a cargo plane.

The biggest demand on the market for commercial airplanes is the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330-200/300.

Both planes are (or have been, like the 767) the most used longhaul airliners in the world. Especially the Boeing 767 has the most achieved track miles on the pond until now. As I don't see and expect FSLabs to move from the Airbus to Boeing (which I would love to see indeed!) it is my absolute wish and I think the only thing which makes sense to create the A330.

Why not the others?

Let's make it simple:

- The A340 is dying. No more words needed.

- The A380 is already dead. There are around 300(+) build where Emirates is holding 1/3 of the fleet itself. No airline shows any intensions of extending the lifetime of those aicraft or getting new ones.

Basically every airline is flying the A330 in the whole world and documents are wide spread and available, from the FCOM or other documents.
Let's hope that someone will take the opportunity to get the A330 on the market, which will indeed kill the Aerosoft A330 without any delay. Instantly.

[John Price]

Steady on, Alexander. I don’t think it’ll ‘kill’ it. Simplified aircraft are not my thing, but à chacun son goût. 

Your reasoning makes perfect sense though. I can’t see them making an A340, or at least before making an A330. I should love an FSL A330 or A340, of course. But as Ray says, Concorde would make a lovely change.

[Alexander Polcher]

No Problem John, I am completly calm. It's simply about my relationsship and experience with Aerosoft. I would never, ever buy an aircraft there once in a lifetime and I hope that I can rely on FSLabs for further products. Even the PMDG Queen is simply kind of old-fashioned against the A319/320 quality.

However, I would love to see the A330 from FSLabs. I would even love the Boeing 767 even more as long as Condor is flying this beautiful bird, but obviously nobody get's its hand it it.

Regarding the Condorde: Really? I really love to see this bird, but how many users are there for the Concorde against hundreds and more waiting for a decade right now for a A330 which has never been released? And please don't say Blackbox or the other ones. They are simply not worth mentioning them. 

 

[Atul Mishra]

I think that the developers also make decision on as in which aircraft to develop, based on the interests of commercial partners in addition to the flightsim community of course. I don't know much about it but sustaining their lives, investments they have to make to gather all the information to replicate an aircraft, continuously work on updates, and other factors, simply on the income generated from selling to our small community (which already has lots of piracy) wouldn't be enough in long term. Therefore, planes flying in real world for yet another decade or so could make much more sense for them to develop in order to run the company and mark their presence continuously. So, maybe it could mean that they might do an A330 as they've got a great technical base on A320 family already. 

I maybe completely wrong though but just wanted to share my point of view.

[Steve Prowse]

4 hours ago, Alexander Polcher said:

No Problem John, I am completly calm. It's simply about my relationsship and experience with Aerosoft. I would never, ever buy an aircraft there once in a lifetime . 

 

Well the fact is many people do and they have many hours of enjoyment using their products.  May be it’s because not all of those involved in this wonderful hobby of ours have such deep pockets!  Horses for courses my friend!

[Ray Proudfoot]

8 hours ago, Alexander Polcher said:

Regarding the Condorde: Really? I really love to see this bird, but how many users are there for the Concorde against hundreds and more waiting for a decade right now for a A330 which has never been released? And please don't say Blackbox or the other ones. They are simply not worth mentioning them.

FSL invited those willing to pay 100GBP for a 64-bit Concorde to send an email to them. They would base their decision on whether they had sufficient replies to make it a financially viable project.

They announced a few weeks later that they had received enough emails to justify starting the work. Now I accept there will always be more sales of the Airbus than Concorde. It's a niche aircraft and requires dedication to learn how to fly her.

I took my computer to the flight sim show at RAF Cosford a couple of years ago and I was flying Concorde. There was a lot of enthusiasm from visitors so the interest in her is still out there. I think a lot of people were put off by the quality of the virtual cockpit graphics which had to be kept simple for VAS reasons. That restriction won't apply to the 64-bit version and as a result a state-of-the-art virtual cockpit could well tempt a lot more people to buy her.

[Marc Ehnle]

Ok, let's summarize ;D A340 dead, A380 well.. more or less dead.. A350 so new and full of features whose implementation would probably take another 6-7 years and will require that time's computers ;D The A330 is in my opinion the only wide body aircraft (although I would like an A340 too) that is actually in service, will stay in service for another decade plus and has the systems that can be handled by our computers. I doubt that P3Dv5 will be a lot better/more than v4 for the casual simmer (keep in mind, it's actually a real military combat aircraft simulation platform. So... I'll throw another airplane in... Not in pax service anymore, beautiful, reliable, characterful and stylish.. 

MD-11?

[Daniel Reber]

20 minutes ago, Marc Ehnle said:

Ok, let's summarize ;D A340 dead, A380 well.. more or less dead.. A350 so new and full of features whose implementation would probably take another 6-7 years and will require that time's computers ;D The A330 is in my opinion the only wide body aircraft (although I would like an A340 too) that is actually in service, will stay in service for another decade plus and has the systems that can be handled by our computers. I doubt that P3Dv5 will be a lot better/more than v4 for the casual simmer (keep in mind, it's actually a real military combat aircraft simulation platform. So... I'll throw another airplane in... Not in pax service anymore, beautiful, reliable, characterful and stylish.. 

MD-11?

Well. You know: To be honest, your MD 11 option is illogical. Why? You talk about dead A340s and dead A380s (IAG btw. might order A380s). I can aggree with the statement regarding the A350 systems so I don´t think it´ll be an A350 either. I think, however, it´ll be the A330 even if I would like the A340 more, just like you. BUT: The MD11 is even more dead than the A340 and the A380 is, because: More people in flight simulation use PAX planes other than Cargo planes. There is no Cargo A340 and there is no Cargo A380. Both only exist in PAX versions. But as said, that´s the planes, the majority like to fly. There is no single MD11 in PAX Version left.

 

 

ALL in all,  I think we should not use words like dead here, as, and we´ve seen with Concorde, there is demand for dead planes even if I personally have to say that I would definitely not buy a Concorde. Fascinating, but not the planes I like to fly. 

 

Why is there demand for Concorde? Because it was a masterpiece in aviation history. It didn´t carry that many passengers, it wasn´t that big, but it was a supersonic airframe.

 

For the A380 you can say, it´s not a supersonic plane, it´s not really that beautiful (well from quite some perspectives the big whale indeed is), but it´s biiiiiiiiiiig.

 

And for the A340 you can say: 

It´s no supersonic aircraft, it´s not that big other than the A380, but it´s the longest plane, Airbus ever built. And round about 74 meters is very very long, we all know, only the 748 (talking about passenger planes) is longer, and not even that much, the A340, especially the -600 which I was obviously talking about here, is one of the most beautiful planes out there (well, that´s my personal opinion), it´s elegant and it´s still in service and it will also stay in service for a while. But that doesn´t reall y matter, as, and thet´s important, we´re talking about flight simulation here. That´s not real life. The A340 family is inefficient, yes, but that´s not a fact we have to pay attention to in our sims. 

And one big plus point for the A340:  It´s not in development by one of the bigger developers, who also add at least a bit of realism to their planes (PMDG, FSL, Aerosoft (and yes, Aerosoft add a bit of realism and they are a big aircraft developer, we don´t have to discuss about that), Mettar Simumaltions) [ok, at least development of the A340 or one A340 version has not yet been officially confirmed by the developers, what ever is going on behind the curtons...who knows...maybe I do]

[Marc Ehnle]

13 minutes ago, Daniel Reber said:

ell. You know: To be honest, your MD 11 option is illogical. Why? You talk about dead A340s and dead A380s

That's why I added the ;D smilies..  and actually repeated what was said above. =) I absolutely share your view on it. Anyway I absolutely love the MD--11 and if I'm not wrong Lefteries knows a thing or two about this airplane. ^^

I personally don't mind if aircraft are still in service or wether I can fly real routes with it. I want an airplane that is a pleasure to fly and that requires a bit of character. "Pleasure" doesn't mean it shall be easy to fly, I rather ask for realism. As you named the devs, FSL, PMDG, A2A, Majestic... There are many HQ developers out there. And regarding jet airliners we have FSL and PMDG as top of the notch. Whatever they release, it will be an amazing addon. But still, I have this very dream xD

[Joshua Williams]

On 2/7/2019 at 5:45 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Enough of these bland A3xx aircraft that fly at Mach 0.8x. Maybe a lot of you need a real aircraft. Concorde! Mach 2.02 and beautiful to look at.

Don’t you feel like flying something genuinely exciting?

It's not bland for some of us. We need a good long haul Airbus aircraft that's not Blackbox

[Ray Proudfoot]

21 minutes ago, Joshua Williams said:

It's not bland for some of us. We need a good long haul Airbus aircraft that's not Blackbox

With respect you already have a 64-bit Airbus. We Concorde pilots are still waiting for ours.

I’ve no objection to FSL creating new aircraft but they should take their place in the queue.

Concorde must be next. After that I really don’t care.

[Dean Johnston]

I’d love to see an A330 product be developed after the A321 .

To see a highly complex study level long haul airbus aircraft for P3D especially A330-(200/300)

[Ray Proudfoot]

16 minutes ago, Dean Johnston said:

I’d love to see an A330 product be developed after the A321 .

To see a highly complex study level long haul airbus aircraft for P3D especially A330-(200/300)

Thank you for laughing at my post. Very classy.

[Dean Johnston]

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thank you for laughing at my post. Very classy.

I just found a few words funny 

[Dean Johnston]

@Ray Proudfoot Unfortunately,FSL announced the development of the FSLabs project XXXX-X(24/5/2017) Some time later (15/2/2018)they announced the Concorde x64bit version after will be developed after receiving the feedback . So actually I do believe the Concorde isn’t next in the queue and behind the FSLabs XXXX-X project if you believe in projects taking place in queues 

[Ray Proudfoot]

12 minutes ago, Dean Johnston said:

@Ray Proudfoot Unfortunately,FSL announced the development of the FSLabs project XXXX-X(24/5/2017) Some time later (15/2/2018)they announced the Concorde x64bit version after will be developed after receiving the feedback . So actually I do believe the Concorde isn’t next in the queue and behind the FSLabs XXXX-X project if you believe in projects taking place in queues 

But in a post a few months ago they said work on Concorde was progressing. So work has started. To be honest I’m struggling to understand why you need another Airbus when you already have two 64-bit versions.

Do you not think Concorde pilots deserve their version before you get a third one?

[Dean Johnston]

@Ray Proudfoot The Develoment of both the FSLabs XXXX-X and Concorde has started 

Currently at the moment there is no study level highly complex long haul airbus aircraft available for P3D ,hopefully you can understand that and see the demand for such a product 

I do think Concorde customers deserve to get the Concorde x64 version when released in the future .

Personally,I’m not sure if many P3D users are still interested in flying INS equipped aircraft such as the Concorde in their sims 

[Ray Proudfoot]

40 minutes ago, Dean Johnston said:

@Ray Proudfoot The Develoment of both the FSLabs XXXX-X and Concorde has started 

Currently at the moment there is no study level highly complex long haul airbus aircraft available for P3D ,hopefully you can understand that and see the demand for such a product 

I do think Concorde customers deserve to get the Concorde x64 version when released in the future .

Personally,I’m not sure if many P3D users are still interested in flying INS equipped aircraft such as the Concorde in their sims 

I have no objection to a long-haul Airbus. But if it was released ahead of Concorde that would be 3-0 to subsonic 64-bit aircraft and in my opinion a slap in the face to those of us patiently waiting for a study-level 64-bit supersonic aircraft.

At well over 100GBP a pop that’s quite an expensive collection of aircraft you’re accumulating.

What’s wrong with INS? It’s accurate and unlike the FMC of Airbuses has no vertical control because Concorde - unlike other subsonic aircraft that were INS equipped - has no restrictions on how high she can climb.

She kept climbing until it was time to decelerate and descend. The INS system is perfect for Concorde.

[Daniel Reber]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no objection to a long-haul Airbus. But if it was released ahead of Concorde that would be 3-0 to subsonic 64-bit aircraft and in my opinion a slap in the face to those of us patiently waiting for a study-level 64-bit supersonic aircraft.

At well over 100GBP a pop that’s quite an expensive collection of aircraft you’re accumulating.

What’s wrong with INS? It’s accurate and unlike the FMC of Airbuses has no vertical control because Concorde - unlike other subsonic aircraft that were INS equipped - has no restrictions on how high she can climb.

She kept climbing until it was time to decelerate and descend. The INS system is perfect for Concorde.

I would be happy that they are at least working on the Concorde if I was you. 

 

I´d love them to start development of the A320-211 aircraft + EIS1 cockpit for the A320 family, as well as the Satdome and an A330 + A340. As soon as they announce one of those, I´ll definitely be happy about it at least being worked on. 

 

See? Concorde has been announced, but none of those I mentioned have so far been announced and I´m curious if they ever will so be happy, your plane is being developed by such a great developer.

[Martin Tornberg]

I haven't stuck my head into this discussion but I can't stay out of it anymore... I'm with Ray and hopefully some others too... Please focus on Concorde for v4 prior any other commitment (yes, I'm biased. I prefer flying a proper aircraft with needles and dials at M2.02). Anyway, good luck with any of your products!

[Markus Burkhard]

4 hours ago, Dean Johnston said:

Personally,I’m not sure if many P3D users are still interested in flying INS equipped aircraft such as the Concorde in their sims 

Excuse me Sir?!? I'd kill for a highly complex DC-10 or B747-200 inside P3Dv4!!  That would instantly ground all Airbus aircraft for a few weeks... in my Sim at least 

[Marc Ehnle]

7 minutes ago, Markus Burkhard said:

I'd kill for a highly complex DC-10 or B747-200 inside P3Dv4!!

this!

 

Tristar, btw! ^^

[Rafal Haczek]

6 hours ago, Markus Burkhard said:

B747-200 inside P3Dv4

I guess you may know, Markus, but if you don't -  Just Flight are working on 747-100/200.
It might not be as complex as FSL/Leonardo/Majestic, but still should give us a lot of fun.
https://www.justflight.com/product/747-classic

[Steve Prowse]

Would someone like to remind me, what was the first aircraft FSL developed?  What aircraft did FSL build their reputation on?  Now I appreciate that FSL are not sentimentalists,  and think mainly of what puts food on the plate....but surely they know they would sell Concorde64....hell if needs must I’ll buy two!  I promise, money up front if necessary!  Just give us some news please!

[Dmitrij Nazarenko]

On 2/8/2019 at 7:22 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

No it isn't. If you have PFPX you can plan your own routes making sure of course you don't go supersonic over populated areas.

<...>

My favourite routes are EGCC-LPPT, EGLL-GCTS, PHNL-KLAX and KJFK-KMCO. All flown in less than half the time it takes you Airbus pilots.

We keep posting because Lefteris seems to have forgotten all about Concorde so this is just another gentle reminder some news would be appreciated from the head honcho!

And that's the problem, I mostly fly short routes over populated areas (i.e. EVRA-EETN, EVRA-EPWA, EVRA-ESSA (ok, there's a sea in between, but it's still short route), etc.), so Concorde wouldn't even reach it's cruising speed before it would need to descend, so it makes zero difference for me in flight time. BTW I also "fly" 737NG and Q400, so it's not all Airbus for me . In fact I wish it was all Airbus for me, because the plane is so incredible, I would love to use it more often, but unfortunately my PC can't handle it, at the settings and with addons I would want it to, so I'm waiting for the day I will finally be able to upgrade my PC.

Also, I think FSLabs crew is fully aware about the demand for Concorde situation, I mean, how can they not from the amount of posts/off-topic about it, but as usual with this sort of developers, they prefer to stay silent until they have something concrete to share, opposite to the way, i.e. Aerosoft shares news ("we will release XXX plane in two weeks... We were wrong, we need more time, it will be released in a month... You know what, we were again wrong, you will have to wait for 2 mote months, but it is final, I swear... Hmmm, no, not happening, another two weeks are needed... YES, we are finally releasing it, but it is half baked, has plenty of bugs and missing features, but they will come in SP1 in about a month... Uhmmm, we have to cancel SP1, but all the stuff will come in SP2, and who knows when the hell it will come out..."). They probably want to wrap up upgrades to A319/320 and release A321, and then commit to something else. This way if they say something, you will know they mean it, instead of empty promises.

[Ray Proudfoot]

28 minutes ago, Dmitrij Nazarenko said:

And that's the problem, I mostly fly short routes over populated areas (i.e. EVRA-EETN, EVRA-EPWA, EVRA-ESSA (ok, there's a sea in between, but it's still short route), etc.), so Concorde wouldn't even reach it's cruising speed before it would need to descend, so it makes zero difference for me in flight time. BTW I also "fly" 737NG and Q400, so it's not all Airbus for me . In fact I wish it was all Airbus for me, because the plane is so incredible, I would love to use it more often, but unfortunately my PC can't handle it, at the settings and with addons I would want it to, so I'm waiting for the day I will finally be able to upgrade my PC.

Also, I think FSLabs crew is fully aware about the demand for Concorde situation, I mean, how can they not from the amount of posts/off-topic about it, but as usual with this sort of developers, they prefer to stay silent until they have something concrete to share, opposite to the way, i.e. Aerosoft shares news ("we will release XXX plane in two weeks... We were wrong, we need more time, it will be released in a month... You know what, we were again wrong, you will have to wait for 2 mote months, but it is final, I swear... Hmmm, no, not happening, another two weeks are needed... YES, we are finally releasing it, but it is half baked, has plenty of bugs and missing features, but they will come in SP1 in about a month... Uhmmm, we have to cancel SP1, but all the stuff will come in SP2, and who knows when the hell it will come out..."). They probably want to wrap up upgrades to A319/320 and release A321, and then commit to something else. This way if they say something, you will know they mean it, instead of empty promises.

For subsonic routes Concorde's optimum cruising level (dependent on weight of course) was between 280 and 350 and Mach 0.95. Mach 0.95 is 100mph faster than Mach 0.79 so even subsonically it will beat Airbus / Boeing. So you just act as any other subsonic aircraft. 100mph faster will make a difference to your flight times.

I and most others are not asking for weekly updates on Concorde progress. A statement was promised by the end of 2018 but we're still waiting. Ignoring your customers is never a good thing.

[Timm Rehberg]

It's well known that even with the A321-X being released anytime soon™ , there are still sharklet-models's "missing" and consider the NEO's.
So I really don´t know how big the team at FSL is but its hard to believe there could be a A330 project in progress next to all these "variants still missing".

But it would be awesome to get with FSL on long haul flights  

[Dmitrij Nazarenko]

53 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For subsonic routes Concorde's optimum cruising level (dependent on weight of course) was between 280 and 350 and Mach 0.95. Mach 0.95 is 100mph faster than Mach 0.79 so even subsonically it will beat Airbus / Boeing. So you just act as any other subsonic aircraft. 100mph faster will make a difference to your flight times.

OK, I promise, last round of off-topic for me.

That's not how it works unfortunately, I.E. for EVRA-EETN route, you won't climb too high, usually it's around FL200-FL220, so you are not able to cruise at M 0,79 in 737. Now I'm no expert on Concorde, but I think cruise altitude would also limit its cruise speed.

And I'm not sure how much time you would actually win on short routes. I would say up to 1 hour it is pointless, as you have to take into account that you don't just straight up fly at M 0,95 from gate to gate. I just flew EVRA-ESSA. I cruised at FL300 for only around 80 NM. The rest is climb and descent. I presume the difference will be there only on flights starting from 1,5h.